It is notable that in general the greater the scrutiny applied to police classifications, the lower the rate of false reporting detected. Cumulatively, these findings contradict the still widely promulgated stereotype that false rape allegations are a common occurrence.

In the emotionally charged public discourse about sexual violence, it is often the case that assertions are made without reference to research data. Such assertions not only undermine rational discourse but also damage individual victims of sexual violence. The stereotype that false rape allegations are a common occurrence, a widely held misconception in broad swaths of society, including among police officers, has very direct and concrete consequences. It contributes to the enormous problem of underreporting by victims of rape and sexual abuse. It is estimated that between 64% and 96% of victims do not report the crimes committed against them (Fisher et al., 2000; Perkins & Klaus, 1996), and a major reason for this is victims’ belief that his or her report will be met with suspicion or outright disbelief (Jordan, 2004).

If we had things your way, everyone would be in jail. Instead, the laws need to be changed because they are immoral.

You never get tired of being wrong when putting words in others' mouths, do you? If I had my way, people who break the LAW would be punished accordingly. If you don't like a law, work to have it changed, don't complain that it takes too much work to change it and just choose to disregard the law instead.

I still don't see what's wrong with you people when you blindly support drunks, liars, and bigots.

Because so many of the Dems attacking Kavanaugh are batsh*t crazy and have too little credibility when their extreme bias is always showing so brazenly.

Personally, I find it hilarious that a pot-head is mad that somebody drank lots of beer while he was a kid and that his distinguished and respected professional career no longer matters because BEER. Good thing I've never been drunk or taken any illegal drugs, as somebody might fabricate a story about me some day and try to derail my life.

If you don't like a law, work to have it changed, don't complain that it takes too much work to change it and just choose to disregard the law instead.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd love to change the law, but it's dangerous when you're on the wrong side of it. I vote, but actually going out campaigning to change the law would require time and effort I can not afford.

Personally, I find it hilarious that a pot-head is mad that somebody drank lots of beer while he was a kid and that his distinguished and respected professional career no longer matters because BEER.

That's pretty funny when I went through and gave uncategorically sound evidence that Brett Kavanaugh has a history of making bench decisions that are unconstitutional and just plain evil. But you don't mind ignoring the facts.

I don't give a shit that Brett Kavanaugh liked to party when he was young. I used to party pretty hardy, but I only ever blacked out once. It's his character at stake, not mine. I'm not under consideration for the judiciary. I'm related to a judge, and I highly doubt he would support Brett Kavanaugh either. The fact that Brett Kavanaugh was close friends with Mark Judge, a self admitted groper and another drunk, along with his drinking buddies, along with Ford's testimony, proves that his character is not sufficient to be holding a seat on the highest court in the land. Whatever happened to standards?

The so called FBI investigation into Ford's allegations was a sham. One of the women who came forth with the most serious allegations against Kavanaugh was never even interviewed! One week to perform an investigation that should take a month or more is not sufficient to vet someone who has been accused of such a serious crime.

EDITOh, and in other news, it's 4:20{"name":"611729","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/4\/e4b767cdb0c5d628ddfdb1dc2144b3e3.png","w":1920,"h":1080,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/4\/e4b767cdb0c5d628ddfdb1dc2144b3e3"}

My belief is false rape accusations are not significant enough a problem when many women (35%!) do not report rape in the first place. Priorities!

There are many reasons that women may choose not to report rape. Some of them may well be valid. For example, if there's no concrete evidence of the rape, reporting it likely won't be very fruitful. It will create a he-said, she-said situation. In a just society, no punishment should come from this for either party.

The CA or DA likely wouldn't even go to trial without evidence. If they do happen to go to trial, at least if L&O: SVU is to be believed, it will likely be a very humiliating and traumatic experience for the victim. To be questioned and discredited publicly by the defense. Ultimately, even if the accused is tried and convicted, the victim will likely still suffer from emotional trauma long after the physical damage has healed (assuming it will).

Obviously reporting the incident immediately will improve the police's chances of gathering physical evidence, but even physical evidence can be twisted around to provide reasonable doubt. Was the woman forced, or does she like it rough? Etc.

Unfortunately, there's currently no sure fire way to prove when a sexual assault occurred or didn't. That's why it's best for everyone, especially vulnerable persons, to avoid situations that might leave them susceptible to predators. Don't accept drinks from strangers, don't leave your drink unattended, don't get so drunk that you're likely to black out or make bad choices, don't go home with people you don't know, always stay with a buddy or two and don't leave their side, stay in well lit areas with lots of people around, etc. Many sexual assaults are avoidable if people are willing to take these extra precautions.

Unfortunately, feminists believe that it's a woman's right to be as reckless as she wants. To the point of rallying against education campaigns to teach girls and women of the precautions they can use to protect themselves. And perhaps that's true, but if a woman is assaulted and there's not enough evidence to identify or convict the assailant then there's not much more that anybody can do about it aside from offering support and counselling. We can continue trying cases and get better at the science used to prove guilt, but we cannot just take a woman's word for it and punish people without proof. Most importantly, we cannot undo the psychological harm to the victim. And if that harm is as severe as we're lead to believe by victims and advocates then you'd think it would be well worth the precautions to avoid it in the first place. It's simply impossible to outright prevent rape. You can preach to boys all you want to, but some people are sociopaths or psychopaths that cannot "get it", and others are young and underdeveloped.

Of course, boys and men are also sexually assaulted, and they're extremely unlikely to report it. So we likely have very little clue how frequently it is occurring. But I won't hold my breath for that to become a hot topic any time soon. Society has been conditioned not to care about boys or men. And yet, all we hear day in and day out is that it's a man's world, and women are oppressed by men. Give me a break.

SAGE Publishing was a founding member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) when it was established in 2008. In November 2013, OASPA reviewed SAGE's membership after the Journal of International Medical Research published a false and intentionally flawed paper created and submitted by a reporter for Science as part of a "sting" to test the effectiveness of the peer-review processes of open access journals (see Who's Afraid of Peer Review?). SAGE's membership was reinstated at the end of the six month review period following changes to the journal's editorial processes.

Eeeek. Sounds like a very reputable journal indeed. That was apparently 3 years after publishing the paper you're citing.

It is notable that in general the greater the scrutiny applied to police classifications, the lower the rate of false reporting detected.

I don't think this is notable at all, and it shouldn't come as a surprise. They're effectively measuring proof of a negative. That is, proof that something didn't happen. The more demanding their requirements are for meeting that definition the fewer matches they find. I think that's exactly what you would expect to find, making it not at all notable.

I have now read the entire paper, and I am still underwhelmed. They aren't proving that false rape accusations are rare. The best they can say is that they were unable to prove that false rape accusations are common, though it doesn't seem like they were really trying to do that. It seems like their intention was to cast doubt on the "stereotype" that it is common. Which is quite easy to do, but doubt goes both ways, and the doubt that a rape accusation is false will be met with equal doubt that a rape accusation is valid (as it should).

The paper pretty much came to the same conclusion that I did without any research on the subject: it's nearly impossible to prove unless the victim admits to the fraud or concrete contradictory evidence is found. And it doesn't answer other questions, like if an obviously false report comes in do the police even file a report or do they just show them the door and get a donut? The quality of the data could be unreliable for any number of reasons that the paper doesn't even consider.

There are just so many holes in this kind of "research". It's barely useful as a catalyst for further research. It's certainly not sufficient to form any hard conclusions from. Making it pretty much useless for our current discussion. I certainly wouldn't call it good science.

Personally, I find it hilarious that a pot-head is mad that somebody drank lots of beer while he was a kid and that his distinguished and respected professional career no longer matters because BEER. Good thing I've never been drunk or taken any illegal drugs, as somebody might fabricate a story about me some day and try to derail my life.

I'm assuming he believed that cannabis was legal in Jamaica, but it's not. Medical marijuana is, and the penalty for having a personal amount on you was reduced in 2015, but it's still illegal according to Wikipedia.

If you want to go to a country where cannabis is legal then come to Canada. As of October 18th, cannabis will apparently be legal nationwide. The government is even setting up a goddamned Web site to order it. Like alcohol, you have to purchase it from the government or other licensed distributors, but for now, except for medical marijuana, the only legal source of cannabis is the government operated Web site.

I'm actually [allegedly] really interested in trying cannabis products. They may be a more healthy way to achieve sleep, for example, than several beers. That said, apparently the US government is taking a hard stance against marijuana, and if you admit to using it at the border they may permanently ban you. Irrespective of whether you have any on you or are high at the time of crossing... Kind of fucking ridiculous. So if I refrain it'll be because I don't want to risk being banned from visiting the land of the cheap gasoline and beer.

No, please, stay out of Canada... we don't need more liberals than we already have here!

As for pot smoking... there's just something about breathing in toxic smoke that disagrees with me. I have tried it in the past, and I hate the way it makes me think. I'll never touch it again (plus the fact that I quit smoking like, 26 years ago and I have enjoyed the benefits of breathing only clean air.

Sadly, we are hours away from pot being legal in Canada and I dread the problems that will come as a result of it. I already put up with annoying potheads where I live and the stink of that shit wafting through the building along with the potheads themselves making a mess of where I live. I can't imagine how much worse it will get once legalized. I swear, if someone smokes that shit too close to me, I'll deck 'em.

Maybe Mexico would be more to your liking? They presume you are guilty there. Just hope nobody ever accuses you of rape there, might have a tough time proving you're innocent.

Neil, hahaha you're so funny. You're such a big hypocrite. I never said he was guilty, but I believe it more and more the more I read about him. However, you on the other hand, presume guilt before innocence as well. You presume the guilt of the three women as if it has been proven that their accusations are false and malicious. That in itself is a serious crime.

You say there were 65 women who testified to his 'good nature'. I wonder if you interviewed 65 women who knew him in college you would get a different answer.

Ford knew the price she would pay if she spoke up, but she did anyway. Her family has been stalked and received death threats.

But you know, go on blaming the victim. Someday you might be the victim of a crime you can't prove.

Oh, and I also recall that Ford told her therapist about the assault 6 months before he was even nominated for the supreme court. Can't remember where I read that, I think it was on the Washington Post, but sadly they won't let me view any more articles unless I pay. :/

Sadly, we are hours away from pot being legal in Canada and I dread the problems that will come as a result of it.

I don't actually expect much will change. It's not as if the law was really preventing anybody from doing it that really wanted to. I have been smelling it on my balcony all summer long from who knows which neighbours. I've known countless people that have been doing it for decades.

As has been said, it sounds like for the most part cannabis doesn't really bring the worst out of people. It might make them slow down, or occasionally a bit paranoid I guess, but it shouldn't make them beat their wives or kill anybody on the highway (albeit, driving while high is still against the law). It's not very addictive, so compared to alcohol or heroin, crack, meth, let alone fentanyl I don't think it'll motivate as much crime to fund it. You might make the argument that it's a "gateway drug", but I think that most people have the good sense to stay away from the hard drugs, and the ones that don't are already probably in to it. It's not like a guy that wouldn't do weed because it was illegal is going to try it and suddenly go all the way to illegal drugs. And either way, they already could have done that prior to legalization.

I imagine not much will change, except hopefully it'll result in a bit less money in the pockets of violent criminals, and hopefully fewer people even have access to the kinds of people that could source them hard drugs. If you can get your weed from the government then you won't need to get it from a street dealer that is lacing it with fentanyl to try to get you hooked on more profitable products, and even if your dealer is a stand up guy that doesn't do that kind of thing, he probably has the connections to get you other kinds of drugs. Instead, people can just get a nice high from the government and stay away from the kinds of influences that might tempt them to try harder shit. At least, in theory.

Only time will tell, but I think you can rest easy. Things are already really bad with the meth and fentanyl problems in Ontario. I don't think this will make things worse. It might actually help to make them better. Apparently several people have been overdosing on street marijuana that was laced with fentanyl unknown to the consumer. At least if you're getting your weed from the government you should be able to trust its source.

Edgar, the American Bar Association disagrees with you and considers him one of the best lawyers. Your opinions on his rulings don't matter.

As for alcohol, I agree it's dangerous as are arguably all recreational drugs. I don't drink alcohol except for rare occasions (ie. weddings or a glass of wine on New Year's). Sugar in my diet is probably my most destructive vice, but I've been working on cutting back.

There's a big difference between a lawyer and a judge. A lawyer seeks to cheat and coerce the law to suit his own needs, where a judge has to be impartial.

How is it exactly that his rulings don't matter? He is clearly biased towards power, religion, and the wealthy. He disregards the rights of aliens and minors and women and workers. He is not fit to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

He sides with the law as it is written instead of biasing it in favor of the underdog. That's really why Democrats hate originalist justices.

Edit: When I said earlier that the ABA considers Kavanaugh one of the best lawyers, I should point out their "Well Qualified" rating for Kavanaugh covers his career of being a DC circuit judge as well.

I really hope you're right. I I just told my wife tonight that I doubt we will see any major changes, except I will have to put up with the stink of it more often. But I am still concerned about it being a gateway drug, which some disagree about, I've seen it myself. And I am concerned about the addiction and health problems which will be hard on a country that provides free health care.

But, it is what it is, I'm trying not to complain about it and live and let live. I won't smoke it, I just hope those that do smoke respect my right to clean air and I'll respect their right to kill themselves.

Huh?! I presume nothing about the women as they are the ones making the charges, they are not being charged so how could they be either innocent or guilty of anything?! The law states that the accused has the right to be presumed innocent, so that is what I presume. And that it is up to the accuser to prove their charges, which they did not, so therefore he remains innocent.

It's just that simple. To presume he is guilty and demand that he is to prove he is innocent violates one of his basic constitutional rights. Which is what the Democrats want to do.

We both know this has nothing what so ever to do with him or anything he has done. We both know this has to do with how he will rule in certain cases which concern the Democrats. The Democrats want to do away with many parts of the constitution and they know he 100% supports the law and the constitution and that his position is a lifetime one which means they are screwed now. That is what this is about no matter how anyone twists it.

I really hope you're right. I I just told my wife tonight that I doubt we will see any major changes, except I will have to put up with the stink of it more often. But I am still concerned about it being a gateway drug, which some disagree about, I've seen it myself. And I am concerned about the addiction and health problems which will be hard on a country that provides free health care.

But, it is what it is, I'm trying not to complain about it and live and let live. I won't smoke it, I just hope those that do smoke respect my right to clean air and I'll respect their right to kill themselves.

I initially found the smell pretty annoying, until a neighbour in my building started smoking it regularly. I'm not a buzzkill so I didn't get upset about it. And over time I really learned to enjoy the smell. In fact, our landlord posted a notice basically saying that we can complain about the smell of pot and our neighbours will be put on notice with an official complaint. Basically 2 (or is it 3?) and they'll get kicked out of the building. That kind of made me sad because it might mean I won't be smelling that anymore for free. Mind you, these neighbours appeared to be smoking it outside because I could only smell it on my balcony or with my patio open. Rather courteous, I say. I get that some people just would find it repulsive, and probably it varies by the variant of pot that the user is smoking. That said, I think that living in a shared building requires a bit of give and take. It's not all about any one individual. We all need to learn to live together. Complaints are so formal and hostile. What happened to just having a conversation with your neighbour, getting their side of the story, and asking them if it would be too inconvenient to smoke it on the balcony or something?

I went onto ocs.ca today. Basically it's the official cannabis online store in Ontario. I was overwhelmed by the choices. Probably for experienced users it's underwhelming and even a bit limited, but for me I couldn't even choose what to order. Ultimately, I decided to wait. The FAQ say not to consume cannabis while you're drinking which pretty much means I cannot consume cannabis. But I'm also nervous about the US border reaction. All-in-all I think it makes sense to wait a while for me. I'll probably need somebody experienced with it to teach me how to do all the things required, and what to buy, and there's really no rush. I'm mostly interested in whether or not it will offer a more healthy alternative to 8 drinks of alcohol a night. It kind of seems like a lot of work though so it will have to work well for me to be willing to go through that. I'm also nervous because I've heard reports that the US border is basically going to start interrogating us as we cross and if we admit to ever using cannabis we'll get permanently banned. And if they find any trace amounts on you or in your vehicle you can actually be jailed.. So it's kind of worrying for that reason. Perhaps in a few years the US federal government will give in too.

My other concern is that ocs.ca says that consuming cannabis increases your risk for mental illness by like 40%. Which I find pretty alarming. I'm already concerned that I may have some kind of mental disorder so I probably don't want to risk exacerbating it until I've been evaluated... It also says the risks for psychosis increase! Yikes. It seems a bit far fetched though based on other statements made, but I imagine they're just trying to cover their bases. I guess time will also help to work out these concerns. Now that it's legal I suppose you could talk to a doctor about it and see what advice they can give.

> It also says the risks for psychosis increase! Yikes. It seems a bit far fetched though based on other statements made, but I imagine they're just trying to cover their bases.

They're not exaggerating. Marijuana affects the same parts of the brain as antipsychotics (antipsychotics supress dopamine, while marijauna increases it, I think?). I've talked to my doctors about it because I was just curious and they all said it's a Very Bad Idea (tm). Anecdotally, they've had patients relapse after doing well because of marijuana.

If you don't have a psychotic disorder, or don't have an inclination for one that would be triggered by marijauna, you'd be fine. Just be warned over use can cause laziness, paranoia, diminished motivation, and weight gain (from eating)...

To clarify, I've been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and my positive symptoms include psychosis (i.e., delusional thinking and [rare] visual hallucinations in my case).

Oooh, I would have fun with an idiot landlord like that! I know the landlord and tenant act and they CANNOT kick you out of the building for complaining about the smell. Period.

This is one topic I know A LOT about! I have studied the act since I was a teen. I had one landlord try and evict me four times, all year long he tried, and I challenged him in court and won every single case.

This landlord you mention doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Any such eviction notice would be thrown out of court.

Heck, I even had a landlord try and evict me because I violated my lease, and sure enough I did! BUT, i still won the case because in the lease, the landlord basically has you sign away your rights and according to law, it protects you from signing away your rights, so even IF you agree to no longer have rights and sign a lease stating such, the law still protects you and doesn't allow a landlord or you to sign away your rights. It's great protection.

I think I have received a total of 5 or 6 eviction notices in my life, and I have yet to lose a single case.

When given a notice, it has to be an official notice, approved by the sherrif. It has to have GOOD reason under law, and they have to give it to you on the day the rent is due or it is invalid. If you are a monthly rental, they have to give you two months notice and you ALWAYS have the right to dispute it, in which case they cannot evict you until the court decides the case.

Even if you fail to pay the rent, the law states that you have 14 days to pay it. They can give you a 20 day notice to move in that case, but if you pay it within the 14 days, the notice is invalid and you don't have to move.

It's good to know your rights. The next time the landlord says that, laugh in his face and say "good luck with that!".

Actually, I got a Queen's law student that represented me, cost me nothing. I applied for assistance as well from a legal aid thing you can get it from.

The Ontario landlord and tenant act is not that long. And you can look up the laws on specific points without having to study the whole thing.

Years ago, in the '80s, before computer access, you used to be able to go downtown where I live (Kingston) and they had single page pamphlets which gave a summary of the most important of your rights.

Lately I looked up about the temperature laws for example. In all cities in Ontario, they have to have the heat on by September 15th, and it has to be at a minimum temperature which varies slightly from city to city. Some have it around 20C, some are at 21.1C (which is 70F, that is what it is in Kingston) between 6am and 11pm. late night hours it can go down to around 18C (again, the specifics vary). And there are even instructions on who to contact in case of a violation.

I'll try and find the website for you, it's VERY handy to bookmark and learn. Don't let them push you around, you have rights, and they absolutely cannot evict you for complaining. That's laughable.

Here's my link I keep on hand on the temperatures they have to keep your place at. You can find other information here, bookmark it and don't let them screw you over. Ontario has awesome rights for tenants, always has.

These days it doesn't go to court, but instead it goes to a special board. I actually went to one recently and in a strange twist, I was helping the landlord (a first for me) so that point of view was interesting. But even more interesting was that the tenant was guilty of all charges against them, and the notice was a proper one, but they got off the charges because the landlord didn't explain to him in the notice how he could have remedied the problems!!! It was ridiculous to be honest, but it shows just how hard it is to evict someone and these days, the landlord has to treat tenants like they are absolutely stupid in all ways or they will not be able to evict them.

Don't let them push you around, you have rights, and they absolutely cannot evict you for complaining. That's laughable.

I think you misunderstood me. You won't get evicted for complaining. You may get evicted if you smoke weed around the building and annoy your neighbours. You can basically file a complaint if somebody's cannabis use is bothering you. Apparently if you do, they'll be put on a 6 month probation period whereby if somebody complains about it again presumably they'll be evicted.

Albeit, I wish it counted against you for complaining about stupid things. When I first moved into this building I had a complaint filed against me for playing my car stereo somewhat loud while parking. But it's literally like 1 minute, and there was like 5 other people that already lived in the building doing it that didn't get complaints (one of them my brother, who set the example for me). I was like 24 at the time.

Much more recently, a neighbour just moved in below me, and complained that my balcony was too loud and shook his apartment. The superintendent asked me to open it slowly because there was nothing he could do... I sprayed the tracks with WD-40 which mostly freed it up (but it doesn't last long and probably could be done again). Nevertheless, to this day there are other neighbours who shake my apartment a little bit when they open their patio door. It's quite loud. And yet, I never even noticed it until this other neighbour bitched about it. And even though I notice it now, it still doesn't bother me. We're renting. We share space with people. You have to deal. I just wish the superintendent could just tell him "tough" (or at least fix the problem himself so it's not my problem).

I mean, it's silly to say that you're "interfering with the enjoyment" of an apartment. In that case, I could complain about kids running in the halls (being kids), or dogs upsetting my cat when they walk by (being dogs), or couples fighting as they walk down the halls (being a couple). Unless there's a legitimate concern for safety or well-being I question the complaint. What I'd really like to complain about is idiots that cannot park evenly between the lines in the parking lot, which means that often there's not enough space to park in your own assigned parking spot. I'd complain, but I think these people are literally incompetent and so even though it's pathetic it's sort of "not their fault" and even if it was their fault I know that nothing would be done about it. The superintendent doesn't have time to police that. And of course, if I start pointing fingers at people for things they can start pointing fingers at me back. I'd rather just live peacefully with my neighbours and get along with everybody.

For example, with the loud music on my car stereo. It was a stock stereo so it wasn't even very damn loud. And I was on the back wall of the parking lot so it's not like I was right next to the bitch's apartment. She was just complaining because she's a buzzkill and me enjoying myself was ruining her depressing life being alone.

As for the pot smell, it can certainly be foul sometimes so I can understand not wanting to smell that. That said, in my experience, I got used to it after a while (because I wouldn't complain over that unless it was actually putting me out somehow) and now I rather like it when my neighbour smokes it (and I haven't smoked it myself yet; I've just learned to really enjoy the smell). I guess I'm just a more open person than some. In any case, the evidence seems to indicate that it's far less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol.

But time will tell. If my neighbour continues to smoke it on his balcony then I might try too. If we get a complaint then we can stop. But hopefully our neighbours are decent enough to talk to us first. We know most of them by now.

Append:

I just saw this quote in the opening sequence of a movie, "Acts of Vengeance":

I think it's short and sweet, and illustrates how Feminists are fucking delusional. Of course, I interpret "men" here to be "people", which I think normal people would, but due to my accusation against Feminists I feel I need to qualify that because some people are literal only when it suits their agenda and this would otherwise be one of those times.

Append:

I crossed the border on Friday and it was no different than usual. In fact, it was more smooth than usual. That said, I ordered pretty early and it is probably still 3 days away so perhaps they're biding their time until they're sure the government is delivering legal weed. It's kind of humorous. I'm just hoping they continue to be relaxed and peaceful about it. The majority of Canadians are not criminals. We're regular, hard-working people trying to get through the day like every other American. And plenty willing to spend our dollar in America if we're near the border and the price is right.

-----sig:“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin